Bueno v. Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District

Opinion

DAISY BUENO, individually and as Case No. 1:21-cv-00436-JLT-HBK guardian ad litem for S.B., a minor, Plaintiffs, STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED v. COMPLAINT BASS LAKE JOINT UNION ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, STIPULATED MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO FILE MINOR’S COMPROMISE Defendant. (Doc. No. 83) SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 DEADLINE Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Daisy Bueno, individually and as guardian ad litem for S.B., a minor child, and Defendant Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District (collectively “Parties”) stipulated motion for leave for Plaintiffs to file a first amended complaint filed on July 15, 2025. (Doc No. 83). Defendant does not object to allowing Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached to the stipulated motion. (Id. at 3, Doc. No. 83-1). Specifically, in Plaintiffs’ initial complaint, Plaintiffs alleged the failure to provide S.B. with the supports and services outlined in her individualized education plan (“IEP”) was a cause in her throat to collapse requiring a special surgery to repair her throat. (Doc. No. 1). After the discovery process, Plaintiffs could not connect the lack of support and services provided in the educational context, to the injury suffered by S.B. (Doc. No. 83-2, ¶ 7). After meeting and conferring, the Parties agreed to allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to remove allegations related to S.B.’s throat collapsing and to request additional time to file the Petition for Minor’s Compromise.1 (Id. at ¶ 14). The Parties cite to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) in support of permitting Plaintiffs to amend. However, Rule 15 does not provide the applicable standard for evaluating Plaintiffs’ motion at this stage of the litigation. After this court issued a case management scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which established a timetable for amending pleadings, that rule’s standards control. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992) (evaluating under Rule 16 motion for leave to amend filed after issuance of pretrial scheduling order). Rule 16 provides in relevant part: (b) [The district court] . . . shall, after consulting with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties, by a scheduling conference, . . . enter a scheduling order that limits the time (1) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings; (2) to file and hear motions; and (3) to complete discovery. .... The order shall issue as soon as practicable but in no event more than 120 days after filing of the complaint. A schedule shall not be modified except by leave of . . . [the district court] upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Thus, Plaintiffs’ ability to amend their Complaint is governed by Rule 16(b), not Rule 15(a). See Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C.1987) (party seeking to amend pleading after date specified in scheduling order must first show “good cause” for amendment under Rule 16(b), then, if “good cause” be shown, the party must demonstrate that amendment was proper under Rule 15); see also Financial Holding Corp. v. Garnac Grain Co., 127 F.R.D. 165, 166 (W.D. Mo. 1989) (same). The Court finds Plaintiff have established good

1 Because S.B. was a recipient of the Medi-Cal Program, the Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”), DHCS issued a preliminary itemized statement in the amount of $2,857,197.45. (Doc. No. 83-2 at ¶ 6). Based on the allegations in the initial complaint, the lien could not be released. (Id. ¶ 13). cause to amend the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 15. The parties further stipulate that good cause exists for Plaintiff to be granted a 60-day extension of time to file the Petition for Minor’s Compromise. (/d.). Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The Parties’ stipulated motion for leave for Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 83) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint within five (5) days from the date of this Order. 3. The Parties’ stipulated motion for extension of time for Plaintiffs to file the Petition for Minor’s Compromise (Doc. No. 83) 1s GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall submit a Petition for Minor’s Compromise no later than September 12, 2025. Dated: __July 15, 2025 Wiha. Mh. Bareh Zaskth HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE